I have
found a journal that is called Media,
Culture & Society which has an impact factor of 1.092. The journal
provides a major peer-reviewed, international forum for research and
discussions on topics regarding media. That includes newer information and
communication technologies as well as their contexts like politics, economy,
culture and history.
The
research paper that I choose is called Social
Networking Sites: Their Users and Social Implications – A longitudinal Study
by Petter Bae Brandtzaeg (2012). It can be found in the Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication which has an impact factor of 1.778. The paper
is a study on the so called SNSs (social networking sites), like Facebook and
Twitter, and their social impact. In this study Brandtzaeg tries to answer four
different questions regarding this subject by using a unique and extensive set
of longitudinal data from a representative sample of online users in Norway
between 2008 and 2010. This study has compared both the level of social capital
among SNS users and nonusers as well as the level of social capital among
distinct SNS users.
The paper
makes use of a research method called longitudinal study in which data is
gathered for the same subjects repeatedly over a period of time. In this paper
the research design consists of three survey waves (quantitative data) in the
years 2008-2010. Since one of the main questions was how SNS usage and distinct
SNS user types changes over time, this method of research was very appropriate.
One
objective of the paper was to look at the social capital at different types of
SNS users. Therefore the SNS users in the study were divided into five
different SNS user types. The groups were calculated depending on the collected
data and also finally compared and validated with those obtained in previous
research. The author also tried making three and four groups of different SNS
user types but benchmarking tests proved that five groups was the best
solution. Sadly he does not say how this benchmarking was carried out but I
think the choice of clustering SNS users into groups made it easier to draw
conclusions about the social capital in relation to SNS usage.
The
conclusion of the study is that different propositions, saying that users
replace in-person socializing with SNSs or that SNS users are antisocial
networking, are not supported by the results of the study made in this paper.
An implication that the author draws upon are that the study was conducted in
only one country, Norway, which are early adopters of technology and SNSs.
Conducting the study in several countries would have given it an interesting
aspect of comparing different countries in how they use SNSs and how it effects
their social capital.
What is theory and what is it not?
There is a
wide spread of definitions to what theory is but in brief you can say that it
is a system of ideas or statements that is intended to explain a group of facts
or phenomena. Theory is not however regarded as a collection of facts, or
knowledge of an individual fact or event. An example of some things that are
not considered theory is data, references, variables, diagrams and hypotheses.
Major theory
The major
theory that Brandztaeg (2012) uses in the paper about SNSs are one about social capital. Social capital theory is
both a multilevel and multicomponent concept and is about the value of social
networks. In the paper Brandztaeg focuses on the “social network” component and
not others such as trust or norms. The social capital is defined by Brandtzaeg
through four features which are “(1) frequency of face-to-face interaction with
close friends, (2) number of offline acquaintances, (3) level of bridging
capital (or social networks between socially heterogeneous groups), and (4)
absence of reported loneliness”. Since the theory about social capital provides
explanations without any predictions it can be characterized as the theory type
Explanation.
Benefits and limitations
I think
that a limitation to using the theory about social capital is that there is no
single generally accepted definition or operationalization of it. Therefore I
believe that it cannot be as trustworthy as other theories. The definition of
the operationalization of social capital can limit a study. Brandztaeg says
that focus should be on more extensive measures of social capital than what he
has used. On the other hand you can use it in a way so that it fits your
purpose, as I think Brandztaeg has done.
References
Wiley Online
Library. (2013). Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1083-6101
P, B,
Brandztaeg. (2012). Social Networking
Sites: Their Users and Social Implications – A longitudinal Study.
Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature
of Theory in Information Systems. In: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 (3), 611-642.
Sutton, R. I. and Staw, B. M. (1995). What Theory is Not. In:
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 (3), 371-384.
Hi.
SvaraRaderaI read your post and I agree with you that it was indeed an appropriately chosen method for the study. Since the study is basically about the relationship between SNS and the social impact it generates, it's better to study this over a period of time rather than asking respondents if they feel SNS has made a social impact on them. Such questions would be very hard to answer. So the method used would give more accurate results as the respondents answer based on how it is today.. right?
One question I had while reading your description though is who those "distinct SNS users" are, compared to the "regular" SNS users? It wasn't very clear to me.